I see time and time again that posts insinuate that there's no other point of view, and I think that highlighting one perspective is enough to show that this (as in the article) isn't some mathematically perfect piece of advice.

Someone else raised a good point that if we're working on the wrong thing, it doesn't matter how fast we are. However, I think a more subtle interpretation is more helpful here. I think that we need to be clearer about the consequences of the outcomes: what's the value add. The way I often reason about that is whether the outcome is 'Long-term greedy' or whether the outcome is going to make us a million dollars now. I find the latter really helpful, because if we're going to make a million dollars now but it costs us 100K in tech debt, then (provided there's not a better use of the resources) that is likely a good cost-benefit outcome.

It is important to call these distinctions out in my mind because the Computer Science is often the concepts or foundations, whereas the Software Engineering is about how to convert those concepts and use them in a situation such that the concepts are well implemented, tested, and will stand the tests of time (including changing it). They're different skills and concepts.

Another example: as a child you understand what + means and take it for granted. As part of Maths undegrad you start understanding the type of operators and the axioms of maths. The child was perfectly find completing maths problems without that depth.